This is an AAO appeal decision — a case denied once and appealed. It shows how the framework is applied; it is not the filing population.
The Petitioner, a computer network and maintenance technician, proposed to own and manage his own Florida-based IT consulting company offering IT management consulting, server deployment, network infrastructure installation, cybersecurity, and technical training services.
Field: information technology consulting · Read the decision (uscis.gov)
EB-2 threshold — not met
The AAO found the record did not establish the Petitioner holds a U.S. bachelor's degree or foreign equivalent, or the required five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience, so he does not qualify as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree; the exceptional-ability claim was remanded for the Director to evaluate in the first instance.
Prong 1 — national importanceestablished
“Based upon the business plan for I Iand other supporting documentation, we conclude that the proposed endeavor is of substantial merit in the areas of business and technology.”
“Here, the Director has not explained the reasons behind their conclusion that the Petitioner's proposed endeavor is not of national importance.”
AAO decision text
How the evidence was treated
- degree · discounted
“We may reject or give lesser evidentiary weight to credential evaluations inconsistent with the record or "in any way questionable."”
AAO decision text - resume experience · discounted
“The three-for-one formula cited by the evaluation applies only to H-1B nonimmigrant visa petitions, not to immigrant petitions.”
AAO decision text - business plan · credited
This record is one of thousands, each coded for the reasons it turned. A placement shows where your profile sits in that record, not what it predicts. See where your profile sits — 90 seconds →
Notable
The AAO found the Director's decision internally inconsistent: the RFE stated the Petitioner met the advanced-degree and second-prong (well-positioned) requirements, but the final decision reversed both findings without explanation. The AAO also found the Director's national-importance analysis improperly conflated elements of Dhanasar's second and third prongs, and independently found errors in the credential evaluation (mistranslation of a Brazilian 'Curso Superior' as a bachelor's degree, and misapplication of an H-1B-specific equivalency formula) using the AACRAO EDGE database. The matter was remanded rather than dismissed or sustained.
Authorities this decision leans on
From the doctrinal survivor set — 187 authority tests across 47 distinct authorities cleared the differential-lift gates. Only those appear here.
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(2)
- 8 C.F.R. 204.5(k)(3)(iii)
- Flores v. Garland
What this case teaches
Analyst reading of the decision text.
Director's decision was internally inconsistent and legally flawed: erroneous advanced-degree finding based on mistranslated/misread credentials, and national-importance denial improperly merged with prong-2/3 reasoning without explanation, requiring remand.
Ensure credential evaluations match transcripts exactly, and expect adjudicators to keep prongs distinct—press for a clean, explicit national-importance analysis untainted by positioning or discretionary-balance factors.
moderate
economic_growth_generic
mixed
Cases in adjacent profiles
- The Beneficiary proposed to establish an asset investment management and compliance advisory firm in New York offering c
- The Petitioner proposed to develop and commercialize zeolite-based products in the United States, including agricultural
- The Petitioner proposed to operate a medical billing and healthcare revenue cycle management firm in the United States,
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and lead as CEO a cybersecurity and crisis management company in Florida, offering
- The Petitioner proposed to establish and operate an IT consultancy company in Michigan providing cloud migration, cybers